July 2010
/Vol. VIII No. 3
/ Inclusion Solutions Catalog2010 All New Products Sheet
Today, July 26, 2010 is the 20th Anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act. It is a privilege on this special day to send out this issue ofHAVAccess,Inclusion Solutions'free newsletter to help election officials in the United States ensure access for voters with disabilities under the Help America Vote Act, ADA and/or other laws. Please call us at 1-866-232-5487 or visit our theInclusion Solutions website.
Speeding Towards November and Beyond
While there is some uncertainty as to whether HHS funding will continue beyond 2011, never has it been more clear that this funding must be continued in order to fulfill HAVA's promise.
Officials in states such as Colorado have expressed concern that funding may only last through 2011 and beyond. What's the reason for this? It's uncertain but it appears that a few states have had to "return" small portions of HHS funds from early years (e.g. 2003 and 2004) because they have not spent it within the five year allotment.
On the other hand, there is also evidence that the funds might continue. Dick Smolka ofElection Administration Reportsis confident that the HHS grants will be the one portion of HAVA that will remain intact. And Protection and Advocacy Organizations nationwide have created tremendous programs in the last 5-6 years to focus on election accessibility. It's almost inconceivable that these programs would be unfunded. And it's equally unfathomable that P&As would be given funding to discuss and work on election accessibility without giving election officials the resources to make changes.
Moreover, theGeneral Accounting Office's 2008-2009 report on polling site accesshas reported that site access has improved since 2000 – but that there is still much work to do. Coupled with the need to ensure that the increasing numbers of shifts back to paper be made accessible, funding is more critical than ever.
These isolated cases of unspent funds are the exception and not the rule, however. Most states have used the funds – to great effect to improve accessibility to elections in their states. And for the few states that have returned unused funds, it's mostly been a result of administrative delays or earmarking funds for certain counties that have themselves not gotten around to addressing these issues. But rather than cutting off funding, efforts should be made instead to target these "slow adopters" instead of punishing thousands of election jurisdictions nationwide who have used these funds to great effect to improve accessibility. Several other states have found the funds to be insufficient to address the scope of polling place access and in some cases have earmarked other HAVA funds for accessibility beyond HHS amounts. The failure of a few jurisdictions to address accessibility must not be allowed to remove the funding for thousands dependent on these funds who would otherwise not fund accessibility improvements.
The 2010Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Grants for Voting Access for Individuals with Disabilities: announcement is available here. Hopefully this is a harbinger of continued funding in the future.
State Grant Programs and How to Access Them (updated):
- Michigan (Closes July 30, 2010):VOTING ACCESS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES POLLING PLACE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM;Michigan Grant Proposal Form
- Alabama:Grant Materials – Reopens Summer 2010 – call state for details;
- ArkansasProposal for Access Improvements in Arkansas -- contact state for details on grant program;
- North Carolina:See State Site;
- Pennsylvania:State HAVA Page.;Pennsylvania Sample Proposal (Open with funding)
- South Carolina (Open Indefinitely):Reprint of State HAVA Grant Letter (unofficial);SC Proposal (IS)
- Florida:Florida Proposal (IS): Larger HHS Grant Funds to Become Available in August, 2010
- Illinois VAID III -- closes in 2010 -- call state for details)
State Grant Programs that are closed (but which may reopen later) include: Kansas (state is purchasing items in bulk -- requests were due July 16), Maryland (bulk state purchase), Vermont (call state for details);Washington (2009);;Minnesota (Door Automation Program)Minnesota Door Automation Sheet;WisconsinMissouri (Closed December 31Click here for Missouri Application; Texas (Closed December 31);HAVA Memo (unofficial);; Wyoming (Closed July 2010):Wyoming Grant Form (unofficial).
New JerseyState Grant Materials: Call state for further details;Colorado:HAVA and Voters With Disabilities FAQ
Other states with active grant programs where election administrators may have access to funding to make polling places accessible include Arkansas, Georgia, Utah, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and many more. Be sure to check with your own state for official information. (State Officials -- if we've missed information on your program please let us know)!
Other Information on Access:
Connecticut:Bysiewicz Hears Problems Disabled Face While Voting; New York:Voting-rights case for disabled students settled; Oregon:Voting in Oregon: How Sweet It Is
Also see theResource Page for Election Officials
Be sure to whitelist this email address or add it to your contact list -- Don't miss an issue!
I THINK MY SITES ARE ACCESSIBLE: Now What?
Many election officials who have already made strong efforts to make their sites accessible in past years might be tempted to overlook the issue of accessibility. But even if you've made great strides in recent years, there is always more that can be done to improve access for voters with disabilities. Some state officials have even commented that certain jurisdictions are surprisingly not availing themselves of available HHS funding. There are other considerations and secondary priorities for those jurisdictions who have already completed the bulk of their access improvements.
Are My Sites Really Accessible?
The first question that officials need to ask is whether their sites are truly accessible. Did you address all of the issues at your locations, or just the most serious ones such as steps and lips. Occasionally folks might mistakenly believe that the lack of steps or the fact that ramps have been installed means that their locations are all compliant. That's a great first step, but it ignores a host of other issues that might not be as obvious to the untrained eye such as path of travel, signage, door width, door hardware, etc.
Remember that theGeneral Accounting Office's 2008-2009 report on polling site accessfound that site access had improved considerably. The GAO found that "27.3 percent of polling places had no potential impediments in the path from the parking area to the voting area—up from 16 percent in 2000; 45.3 percent had potential impediments but offered curbside voting; and the remaining 27.4 percent had potential impediments and did not offer curbside voting." Thus while site access is certainly much improved, there is still work to do.
Resurveys and New Locations
Election officials are also encouraged to resurvey locations periodically. This is important because not only do circumstances change at some sites, but new locations need to be evaluated. Counties may change many locations between elections – and you may be able to find newly-constructed facilities that may ultimately be considerably more accessible.
Additional Improvements to Site Access: Beyond the Minimum
While theDOJ checklist for polling placesand state regulations setminimumstandards for site accessibility, accessibility is an ongoing obligation. Officials are encouraged to make additional improvements to serve voters. Examples of such "beyond the minimum" improvements might include:
- Additional, improved signage directing voters with disabilities to an accessible route
- Conspicuous signage at the front of polling locations telling voters with (and without) disabilities that the location is accessible
- Alert systems for technically "accessible" doors that some voters may not be able to open
- Automated Doors – especially at public facilities (Minnesota recently completed a HAVA grant program with this focus)
Once site access has truly been addressed, officials can then focus on Category II of the HHS Grants – "Provide the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence) to individuals with the full range of disabilities." This is a catch-all category and HAVAccess could talk through different options for dozens of pages. But California's 2009 Request for Application in its "Vote Grant Program" lists a number of suggested access improvements above and beyond site access including:1) New accessible voting booths; 2) Retrofitting voting booths; 3) Adapter "kits" or other materials to make a voting station accessible; 5) Table to provide accessibility; 7) Chair (for seated voting); 8) Lighting; 12) Low-vision pens; 13) Magnifying devices; 15) Pen grips; 16) Audio translations (of voter education materials only); 26) Improving accessibility of web site.The full list is available by clicking here.
Next Generation of Accessibility
Finally, for those counties and jurisdictions that have truly gone above and beyond and have implemented all of these solutions, there is still more that can be done. "Advanced" and "top of the line" access solutions include innovative concepts such as replacing voting booths with "universally designed" ones that serve voters with and without disabilities, Braille or audio materials, or even creating "accessible absentee voting" so that voters with disabilities can vote accessibly at home using their own assistive technology. SeeEveryone Counts Accessible Online Voting
Ultimately the U.S. Department of Justice and advocates have consistently spoken of an "ongoing obligation" in improving accessibility. Elections are no exception. Congratulations to those officials who have made some of these improvements. But it's critical that not only is HHS funding extended but that election officials understand that there is always more that can be done.
The Three Levels of Training
HAVA Grants for Voting Access for Individuals with Disabilities include provisions for providing training regarding accessibility and outreach to the disability community. But there are many different types of "training" and outreach available – and determining the right types of training for your office is a crucial component to providing full accessibility to voters with disabilities. Training can be grouped into three categories – site access/survey training, machines/training, sensitivity, and outreach to the disability community . And "best practices" from around the country provide guidance as to ideas on these different types.
Health and Human Services (HHS) grants state that funds should be used to "Provide training for election officials, poll workers, and election volunteers on how best to promote the access and participation of individuals with the full range of disabilities in elections for Federal office;" A related provision of the funding is to be used to "Provide individuals with the full range of disabilities with information about the accessibility of polling places." Many states also have dedicated "training" funding not focused solely on disability issues that may also be available to jurisdictions.
And while it is true that advocates and states have put together excellent printed materials on accessibility issues including serving voters with disabilities, training, and outreach (there are too many examples to mention) there is no substitute for in-person training in any of these areas.
Polling Site Surveying Training
Just dropping an elections official or subcontractor off at a polling location armed only with the DOJ ADA GUIDE FOR POLLING PLACES or a state survey form is a recipe for incomplete surveys. Several states have acknowledged this and have made training employees or surveying pollworkers a critical component.
Hawaii was an early leader in this. Back in 2004, the state created a video on surveying polling places for accessibility at the state level. In New York, by contrast, the CatskillCenter for Independent Living created the survey training.
New Jersey not only purchased survey tools statewide, but on occasion has had sessions at state conferences on how to survey polling locations for accessibility.
But early in 2010, California took it one step further. Previously the state had hosted sessions on accessibility and had created printed materials. But after several lawsuits and concerns with the ongoing level of accessibility, the Secretary of State's office sponsored regional training sessions on polling place surveying in the spring of 2010. Offices who sent a representative to these trainings received a reimbursement/stipend and an additional grant. California has truly positioned itself as a national leader on training for surveying polling places.
Machines/Serving Voters
Another training component that's sometimes not focused on enough is ensuring that pollworkers are comfortable in the use of the accessible voting equipment – either for site access or voting machines.
Stories abound nationally from advocates and others who complain that the accessible voting machine (DRE or AutoMARK) "wasn't turned on" or "pollworkers didn't know how to use it." Likewise, if counties are using supplemental site access items like ramps or call bells, it's critical that pollworkers be trained such that there is a pollworker at each location familiar with all elements of accessibility.
Michigan created astatewide training video on the AutoMARK. Likewise in Arkansas, Advocates have created a dedicated video on"Introducing the ES&S iVotronic".
In New York, advocates and others have likewise worked through in-person training to train counties on the operation and use of accessible machines.
Outreach
Closely tied to ensuring that pollworkers are familiar with voting machines is making sure that voters with disabilities in a local community or county are aware of these efforts to make voting available to all. In person outreach and training cannot be understated.
In New York, advocates sometimes will work with the disability community to go out to locations such as independent living centers and demonstrate machines.
Other states have worked closely with their Protection and Advocacy Agencies to conduct outreach. Illinois, Oregon and New Hampshire are just a handful of states that have sponsored accessible voting fairs to test out voting systems and/or let voters try them out.
Sensitivity
But perhaps the most critical element of training comes in terms of sensitivity to voters with disabilities. All of the efforts that counties and states make to improve access can be undone by a single pollworker saying or doing the wrong thing. Almost always these mistakes are a result not of unkindness or malicious intent, but just because pollworkers have not been properly trained.
Many states or advocacy groups have flyers or brochures on serving voters with disabilities. But to truly incorporate sensitivity, there is no substitute for training videos and onsite programs for pollworkers.
Some leading videos that bear mention include:
- Ohio ADA Voting Publications including guides, videos on site access, serving voters with disabilities, and much more
- California Video on Outreach to voters with disabilities
- Arkansas Video on Interacting with Voters With Disabilities
- Vendors also offercommercially available outreach videos that are not state-specific
- Florida's department of elections brought in a speaker at the Florida Supervisor's conference from LARC (LeeCounty's Advocates) to give anincredible sensitivity awareness workshop.
- Ohio has challenged counties to hire trainings and has set up a dedicatedApplication for HHS Grant Funds for In Person Pollworker Training for ADA Compliance.
So when developing "disability training" for your locality, be sure to consider each of these component elements. The very best training and outreach programs encompass some element of each of these to ensure accessibility, sensitivity, and outreach in a manner that serves all voters.